Monday, 1 April 2013

Hidden History of Jesus and the Holy Grail

The
early Christian Church leaders adopted scriptures and teachings
that would obscure the truth about the royal bloodline of Jesus

I did not decide to write the book Bloodline
of the Holy Grail. The book happened by accident,
not by design. It happened by virtue of the fact that for about the last ten
years I have been the appointed historian and sovereign genealogist to
thirty-three royal families. It happened because during those early periods I
was documenting evidence on the history of those royal families and their noble
offshoots, and the chivalric archives of those noble and sovereign families.

What I was doing was putting together written chronological accounts of things
that these families knew the substance of but did not necessarily know the
detail of. It is the reason why in Britain and Europe I necessarily spend far
less time on this biblical aspect, because there’s a lot of what we’ll talk
about tonight that in Europe is taken as read. It was never any secret when my
book came out, for the majority of these people, that Jesus was married
and that Jesus had heirs, because it was written as such in very
many family archives, not necessarily just private but in the open domain. The
published papers of Mary, Queen of Scots talk about it at length. The
papers of James II of England, who was wasn’t deposed until 1688, talk
of it at length.

In putting together the detail, generation by generation, of this story, we
were actually compiling something for posterity that, at that point in time
when I began the work, was locked away in boxes and cupboards, and I was
actually in a position where I was presented with things and said, "Look,
this says, ’Last opened in 1732!". So, some very, very old documentation,
not only last opened in seventeen-whenever, but actually documented and written
down hundreds of years before that.

The book happened by accident. Over a period of time-probably, looking back
now, ten or twelve years ago-I began this work with separate commissions from
separate families, doing work on these genealogies. What happened was they
began to converge. It became very apparent-and it took a long time because
genealogies have to be done backwards, put together backwards and constructed
backwards-but what was happening was that a triangle, from a large top base
with numerous family lines, was pulling in to a point.

I suddenly realized what this point was, and I said, "Wow, do you realize
what I’ve found here?"; and they said, "Ah, you know the father of so
and so?"; and I said, "No, no, no; I’m actually finding that this
comes out of the House of Judah in the first century"; and they
said, "Oh, yeah, we know all that; what we wanted you to do was for
you..."; and I said, "Well, there are millions of people out there
who do not know about it, so let’s turn this triangle upside down and turn it
into a book!". So that’s how the book happened.

On top of that, for the last six years I have been Britain’s Grand Prior of the
Sacred Kindred of Saint Columba, the royal ecclesiastical seat of the Celtic
Church. So I had, also, access to Celtic Church records dating back to AD
37. Because of my attachments to the families, to the knightly orders, I also
had access to Templar documents, to the very documents that the Knights Templar
brought out in Europe in 1128 and confronted the Church establishment with, and
frightened the life out of them with, because these were documents that talked
about bloodline and genealogy, and we’ll get on to that.

So tonight we’re going to embark on a time-honored quest. Some have called it
the ultimate quest. The Christian Church has condemned it as a heresy,
and it is, of course, the quest for the Holy Grail.

A heresy is described in all dictionaries as,

"an opinion which is contrary to the orthodox
dogma of the Christian bishops",

and, in this regard, those other quests which
comprise much of today’s scientific and medical research are equally heretical.
The word "heresy" is, in essence, nothing more than a derogatory
label, a tag used by a fearful Church establishment that has long sought
to maintain control of society through fear of the unknown. A heresy can
therefore define those aspects of philosophy, research, which quest into the
realms of the unknown, and which from time to time provide answers and
solutions that are quite contrary to Church doctrine.

Quests are by their very nature intriguing; history and historical research are
enlightening; but the findings from neither are of any use whatsoever unless
there are present-day applications which, like science and medicine, can sow
the seeds of a better future.

History is no more than recorded experience-generally, the experience of its
winners. It makes common sense to learn from the experience of yesterday. It’s
that very experience which holds the moral, cultural, political, social keys of
tomorrow, and it’s in this context that the Holy Grail supports that
which we call "the Messianic Code". This is the code of social
practice instituted by Jesus when he washed his apostles’ feet at the
Last Supper. It pertains to the obligations of giving and receiving service; it
determines that those in positions of elected authority and influence should
always be aware of their duties as representatives of society, obligated to
serve society, not to presume authority over society. It is the essential key
to democratic government. This is defined as government by the people, for the
people. Without the implementation of the Grail Code, we experience the
only-too-familiar government of the people. This is not democratic government.

Now, in the course of our journey we’ll be discussing many items which are
thoroughly familiar, but we’ll be looking at them from a different perspective
to that normally conveyed. In this regard it will appear that we are often
treading wholly new ground, but in fact it was only the ground that existed
before it was carpeted and concealed by those with otherwise vested interests.
Only by rolling back this carpet of purposeful concealment can we succeed in
our quest for the Holy Grail.

So our quest will begin in the Holy Land of Judaea in the time of Jesus
and we’ll spend a good while there. I will not move from that era until we
break, because it will take that long to set the emergent scene for the next
2,000 years of history.

We’ll be traveling through the Dark Ages then, to spend some time in mediaeval
Europe. The Grail mystery will then be followed into King Arthur’s
Britain and, eventually, in time, to the United States of America where the
American fathers were among the greatest exponents of the Grail Code. Eminent
Americans such as George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin
Franklin, Charles Thompson, Thomas Jefferson were as much
champions of the Holy Grail as were King Arthur, Sir Lancelot and
Galahad.

Bloodline of the Holy Grail, the book, has been described as "the
book of messianic descent". It was a radio interviewer who called it that;
and it’s an apt description because the book carries the subtitle, The Hidden
Lineage of Jesus Revealed. This of course indicates that Jesus
had children and, by implication therefore, that he was married. So was he
married? Did Jesus have children? If so, do we know what happened to
them? Are there descendants alive today? The answer to each of these questions
is yes. We shall be looking at the emergent family in some detail. We will
follow the story, their story, century by century; the story of a resolute
royal dynasty, the descendant heirs of Jesus who struggled against all
odds through the centuries to preserve the Messianic Royal Code down to
date.

Tonight’s story will be a conspiracy: usurped crowns, prosecutions,
assassinations, and the unwarranted concealment of information from the people
of the Western world. It’s an account of good government and bad government;
about how the patriarchal kingship of people was supplanted by dogmatic tyranny
and the dictatorial lordship of lands. It’s a compelling journey of discovery,
a view of past ages, but with its eye firmly set on the future. This is history
as it was once written but has never been told.

Let’s begin with the most obvious of all questions. What is the Holy Grail?
How is the Holy Grail connected with the descendant heirs of Jesus? The
fact that Jesus had descendants might come as a surprise to some, but it
was widely known in Britain and Europe until the late Middle Ages, just a few
hundred years ago.

In mediaeval times, the line of messianic descent was defined by the French
word Sangréal. This derived from the two words, Sang Réal, meaning
"Blood Royal". This was the Blood Royal of Judah, the kingly line of
David which progressed through Jesus and his heirs. In English
translation, the definition, Sangréal, became "San Gréal", as in
"San" Francisco. When written more fully it was written "Saint
Grail", "Saint", of course, relating to "Holy"; and by
a natural linguistic process came the more romantically familiar name, "Holy
Grail".

From the Middle Ages there were a number of chivalric and military orders
specifically attached to the Messianic Blood Royal in Britain and
Europe. They included the Order of the Realm of Sion, the Order of
the Sacred Sepulchre; but the
most prestigious of all was the Sovereign Order of the Sangréal - the Knights
of the Holy Grail. This was a dynastic Order ofScotland’s
Royal House of Stewart.

In symbolic terms the Grail is often
portrayed as a chalice that contains the blood of Jesus; alternatively
as a vine of grapes. The product of grapes is wine, and it is the chalice and
the wine of Grail tradition that sit at the very heart of the Communion, the
Mass, the Eucharist; and this sacrament, the Sacred Chalice, contains the wine
that represents the perpetual blood of Jesus.

It is quite apparent that although maintaining the ancient Communion custom,
the Christian Church has conveniently ignored and elected not to teach the true
meaning and origin of that custom. Few people even think to enquire about the
ultimate symbolism of the chalice and wine sacrament, believing that it comes
simply from some gospel entry relating to the Last Supper. Well, it’s the
significance of the perpetual blood of Jesus. How is the blood of Jesus,
or anyone else for that matter, perpetuated? It is perpetuated through
family and lineage.

So why was it that the Church authorities
elected to ignore the bloodline significance of the Grail sacrament? They
kept the sacrament. Why was it they went so far as to denounce Grail lore and
Grail symbolism as heretical?

The fact is that every government and every church teaches the form of history
or dogma most conducive to its own vested interest. In this regard we’re all
conditioned to receiving a very selective form of teaching. We are taught what
we’re supposed to know, and we are told what we’re supposed to believe. But for
the most part we learn both political and religious history by way of national
or clerical propaganda, and this often becomes absolute dogma, teachings which
may not be challenged for fear of reprisals.

With regard to the Church’s attitude towards the chalice and the wine, it is
blatantly apparent that the original symbolism had to be reinterpreted by the
bishops because it denoted that Jesus had offspring and therefore that
he must have united with a woman.

But it was not only sacraments and customary ritual that were reinterpreted
because of this: the very gospels themselves were corrupted to comply
with the male-only establishment of the Church of Rome,much like a
modern film editor will adjust and select the tapes to achieve the desired
result, the result of the vested interest of the film-maker.

We’re all familiar with the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but what
about the other gospels? What about the Gospel of Philip, of Thomas,
of Mary and of Mary Magdalene? What of all the numerous gospels
and acts and epistles that were not approved by the Church councils when the
New Testament was collated? Why were they excluded when the choices were
made?

There were actually two main criteria for selection of gospels for the New
Testament. These were determined at the Council of Carthage in the year
397. The first criterion was that the New Testament must be written in the
names of Jesus’ own apostles. Mark was not an apostle of Jesus,
as far as we know; nor was Luke. They were colleagues of the later St Paul.
Thomas, on the other hand, was one of the original twelve, and yet the gospel
in his name was excluded. Not only that, but along with numerous other gospels
and texts it was destined and sentenced to be destroyed.

Although these books weren’t rediscovered until this present century, they were
used openly by the early Christians. Certain of them, including the gospels
mentioned, along with the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of the
Egyptians and others, were actually mentioned in writings by early
churchmen. Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyon, Origen of Alexandria-
they all mention these other gospels.

So why were the gospels of Mark and Luke selected if they were not Jesus’
own apostles? Because Mark and Luke actually were apostles of Jesus, and
the early Church fathers knew this. In those days before the New Testament was
corrupted, they knew full well that Jesus survived the Crucifixion. In
these early gospels there was no story of Resurrection; this was added later.

Why were other apostolic gospels not selected? Because there was a second, far
more important criterion - the criterion by which, in truth, the gospel
selection was really made. And this was a wholly sexist regulation. It
precluded anything that upheld the status of women in Church or community,
society.

Indeed, the Church’s own apostolic constitutions were compiled on this basis.
They state,

"We do not permit our women to teach in
the Church, only to pray and to hear those who teach. Our master, when he sent us
the twelve, did nowhere send out a woman; for the head of the woman is the man,
and is it not reasonable that the body should govern the head?".

This was rubbish, but it was for this very
reason that dozens of gospels were not selected-because they made it quite
clear that there were very many active women in the ministry of Jesus. Mary
Magdalene, Martha, Helena-Salome, Mary Jacob Cleophas,
Joanna. These were not only ministry disciples; they’re recorded as priestesses
in their own right, running exemplary schools of worship in the Nazarene
tradition.

In St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, Paul makes specific mention of his own
female helpers: Phoebe, for example, whom he called a sister of the
Church; Julia; Priscilla, who laid down her net for the cause.
The New Testament is alive with women disciples, but the Church ignored
them all. When the Church’s precepts of ecclesiastical discipline were drawn
up, they stated, "It is not permitted for a woman to speak in Church, nor
to claim for herself any share in any masculine function". But the Church
itself had decided that this was a masculine function.

The Church was so frightened of women that it instituted a rule of
celibacy: a rule for its priests, a rule that became a law in 1138; a law that
persists today. Well, this rule has never been quite what it appears on the
surface, because, when one reads the rule, when one studies history, one
can see that it was never, ever sexual activity as such that bothered the
Church. The specific definition that made this rule possible was priestly
intimacy with women. Why? Because women become wives and lovers. The very
nature of motherhood is a perpetuation of bloodlines. It was this that bothered
the Church: a taboo subject-motherhood, bloodlines. This image had to be
separated from the necessary image of Jesus.

But it wasn’t as if the Bible had said any such thing. St Paul had said
in his Epistle to Timothy:

·that a
bishop should be married to one wife and that he should have children;

·that a
man with experience in his own family household is actually far better
qualified to take care of the Church.

·

Even though the Roman Church
authorities claimed to uphold the teaching of St Paul in particular, they chose
completely to disregard this explicit directive to suit their own ends, so that
Jesus’ own marital status could be strategically ignored.

But the Church’s celibate, unmarried image of Jesus was fully
contradicted in other writings of the era. It was openly contradicted in
the public domain until the perpetuation of the truth was proclaimed a
punishable heresy only 450 years ago in 1547, the year that Henry VIII
died in England.

It’s not just the Christian New Testament that suffers from these sexist
restrictions. A similar editing process was applied to the Jewish-based Old
Testament, and this made it conveniently suitable to be added to the Christian
Bible. This is made particularly apparent by a couple of entries that bypassed
the editors’ scrutiny.

The books of Joshua and 2 Samuel both refer to the
much more ancient Book of Jasher. They say it’s very
important, the Book of Jasher. Where is it? Not in the Bible. Like so
many other books, it was purposely left out. But does it still exist? Yes. The
nine-foot Hebrew scroll of Jasher still exists. It has been historically
important for a long, long time. It was the jewel of the court of Emperor
Charlemagne, and the translation of the Book of Jasher was the very reason
that the University of Paris was founded, in the year 800. That was about a
century before the Old Testament that we know was actually put together.

Jasher was the staff-bearer to Moses. His writings are of enormous
significance. The accounts relate to the story of the Israelites in Egypt, to
their exodus into Canaan. But these stories differ considerably from the way we
know the story today. They explain that it was not Moses who was the spiritual
leader of the tribes who crossed the Red Sea to Mount Sinai. The spiritual
leader was Miriam.

At that time the Jews had never heard of Jehovah; they worshipped thegoddess
Asherah. Their spiritual leaders were largely female. Miriam posed,
according to the Book of Jasher, such a problem for Moses in his attempt
to create a new environment of male dominance that he imprisoned her; and the
Jewish nation rose against Moses with their armies to secure Miriam’s release. This
is not in the Bible.

So let’s move to where the Christian story itself began. Let’s look at the
gospels themselves and, in doing that, let’s see what they actually tell us,
against what we think they tell us, because we have all learned to go along
with what we are taught about the gospels in schoolrooms and churches. But is
the teaching correctly related always? Does it conform with the written
scriptures? It’s actually surprising how much we think we know, but we’ve
learned it just from pulpits or from picture books, not from necessarily
studying the texts.

The nativity story itself provides a good example. It’s widely accepted, and
the Christmas cards keep telling us that Jesus was born in a stable. The
gospels don’t say that. There is no stable mentioned in any authorized gospel.
The nativity is not mentioned at all in Mark or John, and Matthew says quite
plainly that Jesus was born in a house.

So where did the stable come from? It came from a misinterpretation, really, of
the Gospel of Luke which relates that Jesus was laid in a manger-not
born, but laid-and a manger was then, and still is, nothing more than an animal
feeding box. One only has to study society history of the time to recognize the
fact that it was perfectly common for mangers to be used as cradles, and they were
often brought indoors for that very purpose.

So why has it been presumed that this particular manger was in a stable?
Because the English translations of Luke tell us that there was no room in the
inn. Must then have been in a stable! But the pre-English translations
of Luke don’t talk about any inn; the manuscript of Luke does not say there was
no room in the inn. In fact, there were no inns in the East in those days.
There are very few inns there now; and if there are, they’re illegal! People
lodged then in private houses. It was a common way of life. It was called
family hospitality. Homes were open for travelers.

Come to that, if we’re really going to be precise about this, there were no
stables in the region, either. In fact, "stable" is a wholly English
word and it specifically defines a place for keeping horses; horses of a
particular stable. Who on earth rode around on horses in Judaea? Oxen, camels;
the odd Roman officer might have had a horse, but even the mules and the oxen,
if kept under cover, would have been kept under some sort of a shed or
out-house, not in a stable.

As for the mythical inn, the Greek text actually does not say there was no room
at the inn. By the best translation it actually states that there was no
provision in the room. As mentioned in Matthew, Jesus was born in a
house and, as correctly translated, Luke reveals that Jesus was laid in
a manger, an animal feeding box, because there was no cradle provided in the
room.

If we’re on the subject of Jesus’ birth, I think we ought to look at the
chronology here, because this is important as well; because the gospels, the
two gospels that deal with the nativity, actually give us two completely
different dates for the event.

According to Matthew, Jesus was born in the reign of King Herod, Herod
the Great, who debated the event with the Magi and ordered the slaying of the
infants. Well, Herod died in 4 BC, and we know from Matthew that Jesus
was born before that. And because of that, most standard concordant Bibles
and history books imply that Jesus’ date of
birth was 5 BC, because that is before 4 BC and Herod was still reigning,
so that’s a good date.

But in Luke, a completely different date is given. Luke doesn’t tell us about King
Herod or anything like that. Luke says that Jesus
was born while Cyrenius was Governor of Syria, the same year that
the Emperor Augustus implemented the national census, the census which
Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to be a part of.

There are relevant points to mention here, and they are both recorded in the
first-century Jewish annals (such as The Antiquities of the Jews). Cyrenius
was appointed Governor of Syria in AD 6. This was the very year recorded of the
national census, put into operation by Cyrenius and ordered by Emperor
Augustus. As Luke tells us, it was the first and only ever recorded census
for the region.

So Jesus was born before 4 BC and in AD 6. Is this a mistake? No, not
necessarily, because in the way it was originally portrayed we’re actually
looking at two quite specific births.

Both gospels are correct. We’re looking at Jesus’ physical birth,
and we’re looking at Jesus’ community birth. These were defined
at the time as the first and second births, and they applied
specifically to people of particular groups and certainly to dynastic heirs.

Second births for boys were performed by way of a ritual of rebirth. It was
very physical: they were wrapped in swaddling clothes and born again from their
mother’s womb. It was a physical ceremony. Second births for boys took
place at the age of twelve.

So we know that Jesus was twelve in AD 6. Unfortunately, the latter-day
transcribers of Luke completely missed the significance of this, and it was
their endeavor to somehow tie in this event about swaddling clothes and being
born then, that led to this mention of the nonsense about the stable.

So if Jesus was twelve in AD 6, this means that he was born in 7
BC, which ties in perfectly well with the Matthew account that he was
born during the latter reign of King Herod.

But we now discover what appears to be another anomaly, because Luke says later
in the gospel that when Jesus was twelve years old, his parents, Mary
and Joseph, took him to Jerusalem for the day. They then left the city to walk
home for a full day’s journey with their friends before they realized that Jesus
was not in their party. They then returned to Jerusalem to find him at the
temple, discussing his father’s business with the doctors. Well, what sort of
parents can wander for a whole day in the desert, without knowing their
twelve-year-old son’s not there?

The fact is that the whole point of the passage has been missed. There was a
wealth of difference between a twelve-year-old son and a son in his twelfth
year. When a son, on completing his initial twelve years-that is to say, when
he was actually on his thirteenth birthday-was initiated into the community at
the ceremony of his second birth, he was regarded as commencing his first year.
It was the original root of the modern bar mitzvah. His next initiation, the
initiation of manhood in the community, took place in his ninth year, when he
was twenty-one-the root of the age-twenty-one privilege. Various degrees
followed, and the next major test was in his twelfth year-at the end of his
twelfth year, at the age of twenty-four, on his twenty-fourth birthday. When Jesus
remained at the temple in his twelfth year, he was actually twenty-four.
Not surprising that they expected him not perhaps to be wandering around the
desert with them!

So his discussion with the doctors related to his next degree. He would have
discussed this at the time with the spiritual father, the father of the
community; and indeed, he did. It was the father’s business he discussed;
his father’s business. The father of this era is recorded. The spiritual father
of the community at that time was Simeon the Essene, and if we look back
a few verses in Luke we see that it was exactly this man, the just and devout
Simeon, who legitimated Jesus under the law.

So can
we trust the gospels? Well, as we can see, the answer is,
yes, we can actually trust the gospels to a point, but
what we can’t trust is the way that they’ve been convoluted and distorted,
and taught to us by people who don’t understand what they actually said in the
first place.

The present English-language gospels date back effectively to the Authorized
Bible, compiled for the Stewart King James I of England in the early
17th century. This was published and set into print no more than 165 years
before America’s Declaration of Independence; only a few years before the first
Pilgrim Fathers set sail from England.

The gospels of the early Church were originally written in second and third
century Greek. Along with the Bible as a whole, they were translated
into Latin in the fourth century, but it was then to be more than a thousand
years before any English translation was made.

Bible translation was risky then, though. Fourteenth century reformer John
Wycliffe was denounced as a heretic for translating the Bible into English.
His books were burned. In the early 16th century, William Tyndale was
strangled as a form of execution, in Belgium, and then burned, just in case he
wasn’t dead, for translating the Bible into English. A little later, Miles
Coverdale, a disciple of his, made another translation; and by that time
the Church itself had split up quite nicely, so Coverdale’s version was
accepted by the Protestant Church-but he was still a heretic in the eyes of
Rome.

The problem was that as long as the printed text remained obscure (and it
wasn’t just ordinary Latin; this was an horrendous form of Church Latin),
as long as only the bishops could understand it, they could teach whatever on
Earth they wanted. If it were translated into the languages that other people
could understand and maybe read for themselves, this would pose a problem
because the Church could be called to question.

It was not until the early seventeenth century that
the first acceptable English language Bible translation was
made-for the Scots King James VI (Stuart), James I of England.
This was the Authorized Version, upon which the majority of subsequent
English-language Bibles have been based. But even this was not a direct
translation from anything; it was mostly translated from the Greek, partly from
the Latin, and to some extent from the works of others who’d made other
illegitimate translations before.

In their rendering of the New Testament, King James’ translators
endeavored to appease both the Protestants and the Catholics. This was the only
way to produce a generally acceptable text, but their attempt to appease was
not entirely successful. The Catholics thought the translators were siding with
the Protestants and tried to blow up King James in the Houses of
Parliament, and the Protestants said the translators were in league with the
Catholics.

Anyway, the Bible survived but the translators tried as well for
something called "political correctness". We know about it today; it
applied then. Good examples of this are found in many instances-one in
particular where the direct translation referred to a group of people called
"heavenly soldiers". They didn’t like this very much, so it’s
actually crossed out, and underneath it says "heavenly army". But
somebody else came along and said, "No, this is still not good enough; it
denotes an armed unit here; this is not politically correct," and so it
was crossed out again, and they resurrected an old word that had not been
written in the English language for centuries. They called it "the
heavenly host". Nobody knows what the heavenly host is. In fact it’s quite
astounding how many obscure, old and obsolete words were brought back into use
to provide political correctness for the King James Bible, but
which nobody could understand. At the same time, William Shakespeare was
doing likewise in his plays.

If we look at the reference books that existed prior to James and Shakespeare
and at those that existed just after James and Shakespeare, we see that the
English-language vocabulary was increased by more than fifty per cent as a
result of words invented or brought back from obscurity by the writers of the
era. The problem was that nobody, let alone the dictionary compilers, knew what
most of these words meant. But they had somehow to be defined, and
"heavenly host" emerged, quite ambiguously, as "a heavenly lot
of people"!

So although eminently poetic, the language of the Authorized English
Bible is quite unlike any language ever spoken by anyone in England or
anywhere else. It bears no relation to the Greek or Latin from which it was
translated. It was certainly not the language spoken by God, as
some priests once told me (sic). But from this approved canonical
interpretation, all other English language Bibles have emerged in their various
forms. Despite that, for all of its faults, despite its beautiful verse
patterns and the new words, it still remains the closest of all English
language translations from the original Greek manuscripts. All other versions,
the Standard versions, the New versions, the Revised
versions, the Modern English versions, have been significantly
corrupted and they’re quite unsuitable for serious study by anyone because they
have their own specific agenda.

We can cite an extreme version of how this works in practice. We can look at a
Bible currently issued today in Pacific Papua New Guinea where there are tribes
who experience familiarity on a daily basis with no other animal but the pig.
In the current edition of their Bible, every animal mentioned in
the text, whether originally an ox, lion, ass, sheep or whatever, is now
a pig! Even Jesus, the traditional "Lamb of God", in
this Bible is "the Pig of God"!

So, to facilitate the best possible trust in the Gospels, we must go back to
the original Greek manuscripts with their often-used Hebrew and Aramaic words
and phrases. And in so doing we discover that, just as with the Nativity story,
a good deal of relevant content has been misrepresented, misunderstood,
mistranslated or simply just lost in the telling. Sometimes this has happened
because original words have no direct counterpart in other languages.

We’ve all been taught that Jesus’ father Joseph was a carpenter.
"Why not? It says so in the Gospels." But it didn’t say that in
the original Gospels. By the best translation, it actually said that Joseph
was a Master of the Craft. The word "carpenter" was simply a
translator’s concept of a craftsman. Anyone associated with modern Freemasonry
will recognize the term "the Craft". It’s got nothing
whatever to do with woodwork. The text simply denoted that Joseph was a
masterly, learned and scholarly man.

Another example is the concept of the Virgin Birth. Our
English-language Gospels tell us that Jesus’ mother Mary was a
virgin; they keep telling us that she was a virgin. Well, let’s consider the
word "virgin". We understand the word; it tells us that this was a
woman with no experience of sexual union. But this was translated not from the
Greek initially but from the Latin. That was easy because the Latin called her virgo;
Mary was a virgo. It didn’t mean the same
thing at all! Virgo in Latin meant nothing more than "a young
woman". To have meant the same thing as "virgin" does to
us today, the Latin would have been virgo intacta, that is to
say, "a young woman intact".

Let’s look back beyond the Latin text; let’s see why they called her
virgo, a young woman. Maybe they actually got something right which
we’ve got wrong later on. We discover that the word translated to mean virgo,
a young woman, was the old Hebrew word almah which meant "a
young woman". It had no sexual connotation whatever. Had Mary
actually been physically virgo intacta, the Hebrew word used would have
been bethula, not almah.

So, have we been completely misguided by the Gospels? No; we’ve been misguided
by the English language translations of the Gospels. We’ve also been
misguided by a Church establishment that has done everything in its
power to deny women any normal lifestyle in the Gospel story. The New
Testament’s key women are virgins or whores or sometimes widows-never everyday
girlfriends, wives or mothers, and certainly not ever priestesses or holy
sisters.

Notwithstanding that, the Gospels tell us time and time again that Jesus
was descended from King David through his father Joseph. Even St
Paul tells us this in his Epistle to the Hebrews. But we are taught that Jesus’
father was a lowly carpenter and his mother was a virgin-neither of which
descriptions can be found in any original text. So it follows that to get the
best out of the Gospels we’ve really got to read them as they were written, not
as we decide to interpret them according to modern language.

Precisely when the four main Gospels were written is uncertain. What we do know
is that they were first published at various stages in the second half of the
first century. They were unanimous initially in telling us that Jesus
was a Nazarene. This is actually upheld in the Roman annals; and the
first-century chronicles of the Jews and the Bible’s Acts of the Apostles
confirm that Jesus’ brother James and St Paul were leaders of the
sect of the Nazarenes.

This definition of "Nazarene" is very important to the
Grail story because it has been so often misrepresented to suggest that
Jesus came from the town of Nazareth. For the past 400 years, English
language Gospels have perpetuated the error by wrongly translating "Jesus
the Nazarene" as "Jesus of Nazareth". There
was no connection between Nazareth and the Nazarenes. In fact, the
settlement at Nazareth was established in the AD 60s, thirty years or so after
the Crucifixion. Nobody in Jesus’ early life came from Nazareth - it
was not there!

The Nazarenes were a liberal, Jewish sect opposed to the strict
Hebrew regime of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Nazarene culture and language
were heavily influenced by the philosophers of ancient Greece, and their
community supported the concept of equal opportunity for men and women.
Documents of the time referred not to Nazareth but to the Nazarene society.
Priestesses existed in equal opportunity with priests, but this was so
different from what the male-dominated Hebrew society wanted and what the
later, male-dominated Roman Church required.

It has to be remembered that Jesus was not a Christian: he was a
Nazarene - a radical, westernized Jew. The Christian movement was founded by
others in the wake of his own mission. The word "Christian" was first
recorded and used in AD 44 in Antioch, Syria.

In the Arab world, the word used today, as then, to describe Jesus
and his followers is Nazara. This is confirmed in the Muslim
Koran: Jesus is Nazara; his followers are Nazara. The word means
"Keepers" or "Guardians". The full definition is Nazrie
ha-Brit, "Keepers of the Covenant". In fact,
the Brit aspect of that is the very root of the country name of Britain. Brit-ain
means "Covenant-land".

In the time of Jesus the Nazarenes lived in Galilee, and in that
mystical place which the Bible calls "the Wilderness". The
Wilderness was actually a very defined place. It was essentially the
land around the main settlement at Qumran which spread out to Mird
and other places. It was where the Dead Sea Scrolls were
produced-discovered at Qumran in 1948.

Somewhere after the Crucifixion, Peter and his friend Paul went off to Antioch,
then on to Rome, and they began the movement that became Christianity.
But as recorded in the other annals, Jesus, his brother James
and the majority of the other apostles continued the Nazarene movement and
progressed it into Europe. It became the Celtic Church. The
Nazarene movement as a Church is documented within the Celtic Church records as
being formally implemented as the Church of Jesus in AD 37, four years
after the Crucifixion. The Roman Church was formed 300 years later,
after Paul and Peter’s Christians had been persecuted for three centuries.

Through many centuries the Nazarene-based Celtic Church movement
was directly opposed therefore to the Church of Rome. The difference was a
simple one: the Nazarene faith was based on the teachings of Jesus
himself. The guts of the religion, the moral codes, the behavioral patterns,
the social practices, the laws and justices related to Old Testament teaching
but with a liberal message of equality in mind - this was the religion of Jesus.
Roman Christianity is "Churchianity". It was not the message of Jesus
that was important: this Church turned Jesus into the religion.
In short, the Nazarene Church was the true social Church. The Roman
Church was the Church of the Emperors and the Popes; this was the
Imperial hybrid movement.

Apart from straightforward misunderstandings, misinterpretations and
mistranslations, the canonical Gospels suffer from numerous purposeful amendments.
Some original entries have been changed or deleted; other entries have been
added to suit the Church’s vested interest. Back in the fourth century when the
texts were translated into Latin from their original Greek and Semitic tongues,
the majority of these edits and amendments were made.

Even earlier, about AD 195 - one thousand, eight hundred years ago - Bishop
Clement of Alexandria made the first known amendment from the
Gospel texts. He deleted a substantial section from the Gospel of Mark, written
more than a hundred years before that time, and he justified his action in a
letter. "For even if they should say something true, one who loves the
Truth should not...agree with them... For not all true things are to be said to
all men." Interesting. What he meant was that even at that very early
stage there was already a discrepancy between what the Gospel writers had
written and what the bishops wanted to teach.

Today, this section deleted by St Clement is still missing from the Gospel of
Mark. But when Mark is compared with the Gospel that we know today, even
without that section we find that today’s Gospel is a good deal longer than the
original! One of these additional sections comprises the whole of the
Resurrection sequence; this amounts to twelve full verses at the end of
Mark, chapter 16.

It’s now known that everything told about the events after the Crucifixion was
added by Church bishops or their scribes some time in the late fourth
century. Although this is confirmed in the Vatican archives, it is
difficult for most people to gain access, and even if they do, old Greek is
very difficult to understand.

But what exactly was in this section of Mark that Clement saw fit to remove? It
was the section that dealt with the raising of Lazarus. In the
context of the original Mark text, however, Lazarus was portrayed in a
state of excommunication: spiritual death by decree, not physical
death. The account even had Lazarus and Jesus calling to each other
before the tomb was opened. This defeated the bishops’ desire to portray the
raising of Lazarus as a spiritual miracle, not as a simple
release from excommunication. More importantly, it set the scene for the story
of the Crucifixion of Jesus himself, whose own subsequent raising from
spiritual death was determined by the same three-day rule that
applied to Lazarus.

Jesus was raised (released or resurrected) from death by decree
on the statutory third day. In the case of Lazarus, however, Jesus
flouted the rules by raising his friend after the three-day period of symbolic
sickness. At that point, civil death would have become absolute in the eyes of
the legal elders. Lazarus would have been wrapped in sacking and buried
alive. His crime was that he had led a violent people’s-revolt to safeguard the
public water supply which had been diverted through a new Roman aqueduct in
Jerusalem. But Jesus performed this release while not holding any
priestly entitlement to do so. What happened was that Herod-Antipas of
Galilee compelled the High Priest of Jerusalem to relent in favor of Jesus,
and this was regarded as an unprecedented miracle!

But there was more to the removed section of Mark, because in telling the story
of Lazarus the Mark account made it perfectly clear that Jesus
and Mary Magdalenewere actually man and wife. The Lazarus
story in John contains a rather strange sequence that has Martha
coming from the Lazarus house to greet Jesus, whereas her
sister, Mary Magdalene, remains inside until summoned by Jesus.
But in contrast to this, the original Mark account said that Mary Magdalene
actually came out of the house with Martha and was then chastised by the
disciples and sent back indoors to await Jesus’ instruction. This was a
specific procedure of Judaic law, whereby a wife in ritual
mourning was not allowed to emerge from the property until instructed by her
husband.

There’s a good deal of information outside the Bible to confirm
that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were man and wife. But is
there anything relevant in the Gospels today, anything that the editors missed
that tells us the story? Well, there are some specific things and there are
some ancillary things.

There are seven lists given in the Gospels of the women who permanently seemed
to follow Jesus around, and these include Jesus’ mother; but in
six of these seven lists the first name, even ahead of his mother, is Mary
Magdalene. When one studies other lists of the period which relate to any
form of hierarchical society, one notices that the "first lady" was
always the first name listed. The term "First Lady" is
used in America today. The first lady was the most senior; she was always named
first, and as the Messianic Queen, Mary Magdalene would have been named first,
as indeed she was.

But is the marriage defined in the Gospels? Well, it is. Many have suggested
that the wedding at Cana was the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
This was not the wedding ceremony as such, although the marriage is detailed
in the Gospels. The marriage is the quite separate anointings at Bethany.
In Luke we have a first anointing by Mary of Jesus, two-and-a-half years
before the second anointing. It doesn’t occur to many people that they are
different stories, but they are two-and-a-half years apart.

Readers of the first century would have been fully conversant with the two-part
ritual of the sacred marriage of a dynastic heir. Jesus, as we
know, was a "Messiah", which means quite simply an "Anointed
One". In fact, all anointed senior priests and Davidic kings
were Messiahs. Jesus was not unique. Although not an ordained
priest, he gained his right to Messiah status by way of descent from King
David and the kingly line, but he did not achieve that Messiah status
until he was actually physically anointed by Mary Magdalene, in her
capacity as a high priestess, shortly before the Crucifixion.

The word "Messiah" comes from the Hebrew verb "to anoint",
which itself is derived from the Egyptian word messeh, "the
holy crocodile". It was with the fat of the messeh
that the Pharaoh’s sister-brides anointed their husbands on marriage. The
Egyptian custom sprang from kingly practice in old Mesopotamia.

In the Old Testament’s Song of Solomon we hear again of the bridal anointing of
the king. It is defined that the oil used in Judah was the fragrant ointment
spikenard, an expensive root oil from the Himalayas, and we learn that this
anointing ritual was performed always while the husband/king sat at the table.
In the New Testament, the anointing of Jesus by Mary
Magdalene was indeed performed while he sat at the table, and with the
bridal anointment of spikenard. Afterwards, Mary wiped his feet with her hair,
and on the first occasion of the two-part marriage she wept. All of these
things signify the marital anointing of a dynastic heir.

Other anointings of Messiahs, whether on coronation or admission to the senior
priesthood, were always conducted by men, by the High Zadok or the
High Priest. The oil used was olive oil, mixed with cinnamon and other
spices; never, ever spikenard.

Spikenard was the express prerogative of a Messianic bride who had to be a
Mary, a sister of a sacred order. Jesus’ mother was a Mary; so, too,
would his wife have been a Mary, by title at least if not by baptismal name.
Some conventual orders still maintain the tradition by adding the title "Mary"
to the baptismal names of their nuns: Sister Mary Theresa, Sister Mary Louise.

Messianic marriages were always conducted in two stages. The first stage, the
anointing in Luke, was the legal commitment to wedlock. The second stage, the
anointing in Matthew, Mark and John, was the cementing of the contract. And in Jesus
and Mary’s case, the second anointing at Bethany was of express significance. Here
the Grail story begins, because, as explained in books of Jewish law at
the time and by Flavius Josephus in The Antiquities of the Jews,
the second part of this marriage ceremony was never conducted until the wife
was three months pregnant.

Dynastic heirs such as Jesus were expressly required to
perpetuate their lines. Marriage was essential, but the law had to protect them
against marriage to women who proved barren or kept miscarrying, and this
protection was provided by the three-month-pregnancy rule. Miscarriages would
not often happen after that term, and once they got through that period it was
considered safe enough to complete the marriage contract. When anointing her
husband at this stage, the Messianic bride, in accordance with
custom, was said to be anointing him for burial. This is confirmed in the
Gospels. The bride would from that day carry a vial of spikenard around her
neck, for the rest of her husband’s life; she would use it again on his
entombment.

It was for this very purpose that Mary Magdalene would have gone to the
tomb, as she did on the Sabbath after the Crucifixion. Subsequent to the second
Bethany anointing, the Gospels relate that Jesus said:

"Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached
throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for
a memorial of her."

In his famous rendering of the event, the
Renaissance artist Fra Angelico actually depicted Jesus placing a
crown on the head of Mary Magdalene. But despite the fact that Fra
Angelico was a learned 15th-century Dominican friar, did the Christian
Church authorities honor Mary Magdalene and speak of this act as a memorial of
her? No; they did not. They completely ignored Jesus’ own directive and denounced
Mary as a whore.

To the esoteric Church and the Knights Templars, however, Mary
Magdalene was always regarded as a saint. She is still revered as such
by many today, but the interesting part about this sainthood, when we think
about Grail lore, is that Mary is listed as the patron saint of
winegrowers, the guardian of the vine, the guardian of the Holy Grail,
the guardian of the sacred bloodline.

There is much in the Gospels that we don’t presume to be there because we are
never encouraged to look beyond the superficial level. We’ve been aided greatly
in this regard in recent years by the Dead Sea Scrolls and by the
extraordinary research of Australian theologian Dr Barbara Thiering.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have opened up a whole new awareness of
jargon; we have a whole new enlightenment here. They set down the community
offices of the Messiah of Israel. They tell us about the council of twelve
delegate apostles who were permanently appointed to preside over specific
aspects of government and ritual. This leads to a greater awareness of the
apostles themselves. We now know not only what their names were - we always
knew that - but we can understand who they were, who their families were, what
their duties and positions were.

We now understand from studying the Gospels that there is an allegory within
them: the use of words that we don’t understand today. We now know that
baptismal priests were called "fishers"; we know that those who aided
them by hauling the baptismal candidates into the boats in large nets were
called "fishermen"; and we know that the baptismal candidates
themselves were called "fishes". The apostles James and John were
both ordained "fishers". The brothers Peter and Andrew were lay
"fishermen", and Jesus promised them priesthood within the new
ministry, saying "I will make you to become fishers of men".

We now know there was a particular jargon of the Gospel era, a
jargon that would have been readily understood by anybody reading the Gospels
in the first century and beyond. These jargonistic words have been lost to
later interpretation. Today, for example, we call our theatre investors
"angels" and our top entertainers "stars", but what would a
reader from some distant culture in two thousand years’ time make of "The
angel went to talk to the stars"? The Gospels are full of these
jargonistic words. "The poor", "the lepers", "the
multitude", "the blind"-none of these was what we presume it to
mean today. Definitions such as "clouds", "sheep",
"fishes", "loaves" and a variety of others were all
related, just like "stars", to people.

When the Gospels were written in the first century they were issued into a Roman-controlled
environment. Their content had to be disguised against Roman scrutiny.
The information was often political; it was coded, veiled. Where
important sections appeared they were often heralded by the words, "This
is for those with ears to hear"-for those who understand the code. It was
no different to the coded information passed between members of oppressed groups
throughout history. There was a code found in documentation passed between the
later Jews in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.

Through our knowledge of this scribal cryptology we can now determine dates and
locations with very great accuracy. We can uncover many of the hidden meanings
in the Gospels to the extent that the miracles themselves take on a whole new
context. In doing so, this does not in any way decry the fact that a man
like Jesus, and, in fact, specifically Jesus, was obviously a
very special person with enormously special powers, but the Gospels laid down
certain stories which have since become described as "miracles".
These were not put down because they were really miraculous supernatural
events; they were put down because in the then-current political arena they
were actually quite unprecedented actions which successfully flouted the law.

We now know other things. We now know why the Gospels are often not in
agreement with each other. For example, Mark says that Jesus was
crucified at the third hour, whereas John says he was crucified at the sixth
hour. This does not, on the face of it, look too important, but, as we shall
see, this three-hour time difference was crucial to the events that followed.

Let’s look at the water and wine at Cana, following the story
through what the Bible actually tells us, as against what we
think we know. What was a very straightforward event is now dubbed with
supernatural overtones. The Cana wedding, out of four Gospels, is described
only in John. If it was so important to the Church as a miracle, why is it not
in the other three Gospels? It does not say (as is so often said from pulpits):
"They ran out of wine." It doesn’t say that. It says: "When they
wanted wine, the mother of Jesus said, ’They have no wine.’"

The Gospel tells us that the person in charge was the ruler of the feast. This
specifically defines it not as a wedding ceremony as such, but a pre-wedding
betrothal feast. The wine taken at betrothal feasts was only available to
priests and celibate Jews, not to married men, novices or any others who were
regarded as being unsanctified. They were allowed only water-a purification
ritual, as stated in John.

When the time came for this ritual, Mary, clearly not happy about the
discrimination and directing Jesus’ attention to the unsanctified
guests, said: "They have no wine." Having not yet been anointed to
Messiah status, Jesus responded: "Mine hour is not yet come."
At this, Mary forced the issue and Jesus then flouted convention,
abandoning water altogether. Wine for everyone! The ruler of the feast made no
comment whatsoever about any miracle; he simply expressed his
amazement that the wine had turned up at that stage of the proceedings.

It’s been suggested often that the wedding at Cana was Jesus’
own wedding ceremony because he and his mother displayed a right of command
that would not be associated with ordinary guests. However, this feast can be
dated to the summer of AD 30, in the month equivalent to June. First weddings
were always held in the month of Atonement (September), and betrothal feasts
were held three months before that. In this instance, we find that the first
marital anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene was at the Atonement
of AD 30, three months after the Cana ceremony which appears to have been their
own betrothal feast.

The Gospels tell a story that although not always in agreement from Gospel to
Gospel is actually followable outside the Bible. The accounts of Jesus’
activities right up to the time of the Crucifixion can be found in various
records of the era. In the official annals of Imperial Rome, the trial by Pilate
and the Crucifixion are mentioned. We can determine precisely from this
chronological diary of the Roman governors that the Crucifixion took place at
the March Passover of AD 33. The Bethany second marriage anointing was in the
week prior to that. We know that at that stage Mary Magdalene had to
have been three months pregnant, by law, which means she should have given
birth in September of AD 33. That, we’ll come back to.

If the Gospels are read as they are written, Jesus appears as a
liberating dynast, endeavoring to unite the people of the era against the
oppression of the Roman Empire. Judaea at the time was just like France under
German occupation in World War II. The authorities were controlled by the
military occupational force; resistance movements were common.

Jesus was awaited, expected, and by the end of the story had become an
anointed Messiah. In the first century Antiquities of the Jews, Jesus is
called "a wise man", "a teacher" and "the King". There
is nothing there about divinity.

While the Dead Sea Scrolls identify the Messiah of Israel as the
Supreme Military Commander of Israel, it is no secret the apostles were armed.
From the time of recruitment, Jesus checked that they all had swords. At
the very end of the story, Peter drew his sword against Malchus. Jesus
said, "I come not to send peace but a sword."

Many of the high-ranking Jews in Jerusalem were quite content to hold positions
of power backed by a foreign military regime. Apart from that, the Hebrew
groups themselves were sectarian; they did not want to share their God
Jehovah with anybody else, specifically unclean Gentiles. To the
Pharisees and Sadducees, the Jews were God’s chosen people: He belonged to
them, they belonged to Him. But there were other Jews, there were the
Nazarenes, there were the Essenes, who were influenced by
a more liberal, western doctrine. In the event, Jesus’ mission
failed; the rift was insurmountable. Gentiles, in modern-day language, are
simply the non-Jewish Arab races, and the rift is still there today.

The sentencing of Jesus was by the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate,
but Jesus was actually
condemned and excommunicated prior to that by the Sanhedrin Council. It was decided to contrive a punishment,
whereby Jesus would be sentenced by the Roman Governor who was already
trying other prisoners for leading insurrections against himself.

As confirmed by the Supreme Judge and Attorney-General of Israel even today, it
was quite illegal for the Sanhedrin Council to sit at night or to
sit and operate during the Passover, so the timing was perfect. They had an
ideal opportunity, and a reason to say: "Sorry, we can’t do this
ourselves. You, the Roman Governor, have to do this."

As for Jesus’ death on the Cross, it is perfectly plain this was
spiritual death, not physical death, as determined by the
three-day rule that everybody in the first century reading this would have
understood. In civil and legal terms, Jesus was already dead when he was
placed on the Cross. He was denounced, scourged, prepared for death by decree. Today,
we call this "excommunication". For three days Jesus
would have been nominally sick, with absolute death coming on the fourth day.
On that day he would be entombed, buried alive; but during the first three days
he could be raised or resurrected. In fact, he predicted that he would.

Raisings and resurrections (apart from the fact that Jesus once flouted
the rule, and that was a miracle!) could only be performed by the High
Priest or by the Father of the Community. The High Priest at that time was Joseph
Caiaphas, the very man who condemned Jesus; therefore the raising
had to be performed by the patriarchal Father. There are Gospel accounts of Jesus
talking to the Father from the Cross, culminating in "Father, into thy
hands I commend my spirit", and at that time we know from the listings
that the appointed Father was the Magian apostle Simon Zelotes.

We have been taught that Jesus’ physical death was proved by the blood
and water that flowed when he was pierced by the spear, but this has been very
badly translated. The original word does not translate to "pierced";
it translates to "pricked" or to "scratched".
This in turn was mistranslated into the Latin verb "to open", and
into the English word "pierced".

They were not primitive times. They were times when there were doctors, medical
men; there were even forms of hospital. And we can see that, just like today,
the test for reflex action was scratching, prodding or pricking the skin with a
sharp instrument.

I have in my possession a letter from a surgeon of the British Medical Council.
It says:

"Medically, the outflow of water is impossible
to explain. Blood flowing from a stab wound is evidence of life, not death. It
would take a large, gaping laceration for any drop of blood to flow from a dead
body because there is no vascular action."

So let’s look further; let’s look at what the
Gospels actually said. Joseph of Arimathea took down Jesus’ body
from the Cross. In fact, the word that was translated to the English word "body"
was the Greek word soma, meaning "live body". The
alternative word denoting "dead body" or "corpse" would
have been ptoma.

Jesus very apparently survived, and this is explicitly maintained
in other books. Even the Koran says that Jesus
survived the Crucifixion.

During that Friday afternoon when Jesus was on the Cross, there was a
three-hour-forward time change. Time was recorded then by sundials and by priests
who marked the hours by a sequence of measured prayer sessions. In essence,
there were daytime hours and there were night-time hours. Today we have a
twenty-four-hour day. In John, Jesus said: "Are there not twelve
hours in a day?" Yes, there were twelve hours in a day and there were
twelve hours in the night, and daytime started at sunrise. From time to time
the beginning of daytime changed; thus the beginning of night-time changed. In
March, the beginning of daytime would have been somewhere round about six
o’clock in the morning, as we know it.

We know that Joseph of Arimathea negotiated with Pontius Pilate
to have Jesus removed from the Cross after a few hours of hanging. The
Gospels don’t actually agree on the sequence of events here: some use the time
before the time change; some use the time after the time change. But three
hours disappeared from the day, to be replaced with three night-time hours.
Daylight hours were substituted by hours of darkness. The land fell into
darkness for three hours, we are told in the Gospels. Today we would simply, in
a split second, add three night-time hours to the day.

But these three hours were the crux of every single event that
followed, because the Hebrew lunarists made their change during
the daytime. The solarists, of which the Essenes
and the Magi were factions, did not make their change until
midnight-which actually means that according to the Gospel that relates to
Hebrew time, Jesus was crucified at the third hour; but in the other,
solar time he was crucified at the sixth hour.

On that evening the Hebrews began their Sabbath at the old nine o’clock, but
the Essenes and Magians still had three hours to go
before the Sabbath. It was those three hours that enabled them to work with, on
and for Jesus, during a period of time in which nobody else was allowed
to undertake any physical work whatsoever.

And so we come to probably one of the most misunderstood events
of the Bible, and from there we’ll move on, beyond the Bible
period through history, to tell what happened concerning the birth of Jesus
and Mary’s child in September AD 33. One of the most misunderstood events in
the Bible is the Ascension, and in discussing it we will
consider the births of Jesus’ three children and their descendants.

We know from the Gospel chronology that the Bethany
second-marriage anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene was in the
week before the Crucifixion. And we know that at that stage Mary was
three-months pregnant and therefore should have given birth in the following
September.

So, what do the Gospels tell us about events in September AD 33? In fact, the
Gospels tell us nothing, but the story is taken up in The Acts of the
Apostles which detail for September the event which we have come to know as
"the Ascension".

The one thing that the Acts do not do, however, is call the event "the
Ascension". This was a name given to the ritual when the Roman
Church doctrines were established over three centuries later. What the text
actually says is:

"And when he had spoken these things...he was
taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight."

It then continues that "a man in white"
said to the disciples:

"Why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same
Jesus...shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him
go."

Then, a little later in the Acts, it says that
"heaven" must receive Jesus until "the time of
restitution". Given that this was the very month in which Mary Magdalene’s
child was due, is there perhaps some connection between Mary’s confinement and
the so-called Ascension? There certainly is, and the connection is made
by virtue of the time of restitution.

Not only were there rules to govern the marriage ceremony of a Messianic heir,
but so too were there rules to govern the marriage itself. The rules of dynastic
wedlock were quite unlike the Jewish family norm, and Messianic parents were
formally separated at the birth of a child. Even prior to this, intimacy
between a dynastic husband and wife was only allowed in December, so that
births of heirs would always fall in the month of September, the
month of Atonement, the holiest month of the Jewish calendar.

Indeed, it was this very rule which Jesus’s own parents (Joseph and
Mary) had themselves broken. And this was the reason why the Jews were
split in opinion as to whether Jesus was, in fact, their true
Messiah.

When a dynastic child was conceived at the wrong time of year, the mother was
generally placed in monastic custody for the birth so as to avoid public
embarrassment. This was called being "put away privily",
and Matthew states quite plainly that when Mary’s pregnancy was discovered,

"Joseph, her husband, being a just man and not
willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily".

In this instance, special dispensation for the birth
was granted by the archangel Simeon who at that time held the distinction of
"Gabriel", being the angelic priest in charge. Both the Dead
Sea Scrolls and the Book of
Enoch (which was excluded from the Old Testament) detail
that the "archangels" (or chief ambassadors)were
the senior priests at Qumran, retaining the traditional titles of
"Michael",
"Gabriel", "Raphael", "Sariel", etc.

In the case of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, however, the
rules of wedlock had been obeyed to the letter, and their first child was
properly conceived in December AD 32, to be born in September AD 33.

From the moment of a dynastic birth, the parents were physically separated, for
six years if the child was a boy, and for three years if the child was a girl.
Their marriage would only be recommenced at the designated time of restitution.
Meanwhile, the mother and child would enter the equivalent of a convent, and
the father would enter "the Kingdom of Heaven". This Kingdom of
Heaven was actually the Essene High Monastery at Mird, by
the Dead Sea, and the ceremony of entry was conducted by the angelic priests
under the supervision of the appointed Leader of the Pilgrims.

In the Old Testament book of Exodus, the Israelite pilgrims were led into the
Holy Land by a "cloud", and in accordance with this continued Exodus
imagery, the priestly Leader of the Pilgrims was designated with the title
"Cloud".

So, if we now read the Acts verses as they were
intended to be understood, we see that Jesus was taken up by the
Cloud (the Leader of the Pilgrims) to the Kingdom of Heaven (the High
Monastery). And the man in white (an angelic priest) said
that Jesus would return at the time of restitution (when his
Earthly marriage was restored).

If we now look at St Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews
we discover that he explains the said Ascension event in some greater
detail, for Paul tells of how Jesus was admitted to the Priesthood of
Heaven when he actually had no entitlement to such a sacred office. He explains
that Jesus was born (through his father Joseph) into the Davidic
line of Judah, a line which held the right of kingship but had no right
to priesthood, for this was the sole prerogative of the line of Aaron
and Levi.

But, says Paul, a special dispensation was granted, and he tells that "for
the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the
law". As a result of this express "change of the law", it is
explained that Jesus was enabled to enter the Kingdom of
Heaven in the priestly Order of Melchizedek.

So, in September AD 33, the first child of Jesus and Mary Magdalene
was born, and Jesus duly entered the Kingdom of Heaven. There is no
reference to this child being a son (as there is for the two subsequent
births), and given that Jesus returned three years later, in AD 36, we
know that Mary must have had a daughter.

By following the chronology of the Acts, we see that in September
AD 37 a second child was born; and then another in AD 44. The period between
these two births to the second restitution in AD 43 was "six years",
which denotes that the AD 37 child was a son. This fact is also
conveyed by the use of cryptic wording, the same cryptic wording afforded to
the AD 44 child, so we know that this third child was also a son.

In accordance with the scribal codes detailed in the Dead Sea Scrolls,
everything cryptic within the New Testament is set up beforehand by some other
entry which explains that the inherent message is "for those with ears to
hear". Once these codes and allegories are understood, they never ever
vary. They mean the same thing every time they are used, and they are used
every time that same meaning is required.

For example, the Gospels explain that Jesus was called "the Word of
God": "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us... full of
grace and truth." John goes to great lengths to explain the relevance of
this definition, and subsequent entries give details such as "the Word of
God stood by the lake" and "the Word of God was in Samaria".

Messages conveying information about fertility and new life are established in
the Parable of the Sower whose seed "bore fruit and increased". Thus,
when it is said that "the Word of God increased", "those with
ears to hear" would recognize at once that "Jesus
increased", that is to say, he had a son. There are two such entries in
the Acts, and they fall precisely on cue in AD 37 and AD 44.

Probably the most misrepresented book of the New Testament is The Book of
The Revelation of St John the Divine, misrepresented by the Church,
that is; not by the book itself. This book is quite unlike any other in the
Bible. It is dubbed with terrible supernatural overtones, and its
straightforward imagery has been savagely corrupted by the Church
to present the text as some form of foreboding or prophecy of warning! But the
book is not called "The Prophecy" or "The Warning". It is
called "The Revelation".

So, what does the book reveal? Chronologically, its story follows The Acts
of the Apostles, and the Book of The Revelation is, in fact, the
continuing story of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and their sons, particularly the
elder son, Jesus Justus. It follows his life and details his
marriage, along with the birth of his own son. This much-misunderstood New
Testament book is not a foreboding or a warning as the fearful Church
would have us believe. It is precisely what it says it is: a
revelation.

As we saw earlier, ordained priests of the era were called "fishers";
their helpers were called "fishermen", and baptismal candidates were
called "fishes". Jesus became an ordained fisher when he
entered the Kingdom of Heaven, but until that time (as explained by St Paul) he
held no priestly office.

In the rite of ordination, the officiating Levite priests of the Sanctuary
would administer five loaves of bread and two fishes to the candidates, but the
law was very firm in that such candidates had to be circumcised Jews. Gentiles
and uncircumcised Samaritans were on no account afforded any such privilege.

Indeed, it was this particular ministerial ritual which Jesus had
flouted at the so-called "feeding of the five-thousand", because he
presumed the right to grant access to his own new liberal ministry
by offering the loaves and fishes to an unsanctified gathering. Apart from
eventually becoming a fisher, Jesus was also referred to as "the
Christ", a Greek definition which meant "the
King". In saying the name "Jesus
Christ", we are actually saying "King Jesus", and his
kingly heritage was of the Royal House of Judah (the House of David), as
mentioned numerous times in the Gospels and in the Epistles of St Paul.

From AD 33, therefore, Jesus emerged with the dual status of a
"Priest Christ" or, as is more commonly cited, a "Fisher
King". This definition, as we shall see, was to become an hereditary and
dynastic office of Jesus’ heirs, and the succeeding "Fisher
Kings" were paramount in the history of the Grail bloodline.

Prior to the birth of her second son in AD 44, Mary Magdalene was exiled from
Judaea following a political uprising in which she was implicated. Along with
Philip, Lazarus and a few retainers, she traveled (by arrangement with King
Herod-Agrippa II) to live at the Herodian estate near Lyon, in Gaul
(which later became France).

From the earliest times, through the mediaeval era, to the great Renaissance,
Mary’s flight was portrayed in illuminated manuscripts and great artworks
alike. Her life and work in France, especially in Provence and
the Languedoc, appeared not only in works of European history but
also in the Roman Church liturgy, until her story was suppressed by the
Vatican.

Mary Magdalene’s exile is told in The Book of The Revelation
which describes that she was pregnant at the time. It tells also of how the
Roman authorities subsequently persecuted Mary, her son and his heirs:

"And she, being with child, cried...and pained
to be delivered...and behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads...and
seven crowns...stood before the woman...for to devour her child... And she
brought forth a man-child...and the woman fled into the wilderness... And the
dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war forever with the remnant
of her seed...which...have the testimony of Jesus Christ."

It was to Gaul that Mary was said to
have carried the Sangréal (the Blood Royal, the Holy Grail);
and it was in Gaul that the famous line of Jesus and
Mary’s immediate descendant heirs, the Fisher Kings, flourished
for 300 years.

The eternal motto of the Fisher Kings was "In Strength",
inspired by the name of their ancestor, Boaz (the great-grandfather of King
David), whose name similarly meant "In Strength". When translated
into Latin, this became "In Fortis", which was
subsequently corrupted to "Anfortas", the name of the
Fisher King in Grail romance.

We can now return to the Grail’s traditional symbolism as a chalice containing
the blood of Jesus. We can also consider graphic designs dating back
well beyond the Dark Ages to about 3,500 BC. And in doing this, we discover
that a chalice or a cup was the longest-standing symbol
of the female. Its representation was that of the Sacred Vessel, the
vas uterus, the womb.

And so, when fleeing into France, Mary Magdalene carried the Sangréal
in the Sacred Chaliceof her womb, just as
the Book of The Revelation explains. And the name of this second
son was Joseph.

The equivalent traditional symbol of the male was a blade or a
horn, usually represented by a sword or a unicorn. In the Old
Testament’s Song of Solomon and in the Psalms of David, the
fertile unicorn is associated with the kingly line of Judah; and it was for
this very reason that the Cathars of Provence used the mystical
beast to symbolize the Grail bloodline.

Mary Magdalene died in Provence in AD 63. In that
very year, Joseph of Arimathea built the famous chapel at Glastonbury
in England as a memorial to the Messianic Queen. This was the first
’above-ground’ Christian church in the world, and in the following year Mary’s
son Jesus Justus dedicated it to his mother. Jesus the
Younger had in fact been to England with Joseph before, at the age
of twelve, in AD 49. It was this event which inspired William Blake’s
famous song, Jerusalem:

"And did those feet in ancient time, walk upon
England’s mountains green."

But who was Joseph of Arimathea, the man who
assumed full control of affairs at the Crucifixion? And why was it that Jesus’
mother, his wife and the rest of the family accepted Joseph’s intervention without
question?

As late as the year 900, the Church of Rome decided to announce that Joseph
of Arimathea was the uncle of Jesus’ mother Mary. And from that
time, portrayals of Joseph have shown him as being rather elderly at the
Crucifixion, when Mother Mary was herself in her fifties. Prior to the Roman
announcement, however, the historical records of Joseph depicted a much younger
man. He was recorded to have died at the age of 80 on 27 July AD 82, and thus
would have been aged 32 at the time of the Crucifixion.

In fact, Joseph of Arimathea was none other than Jesus
Christ’s own brother, James, and his title had nothing
whatever to with a place name. Arimathea never existed. It therefore
comes as no surprise that Joseph negotiated with Pilate to place Jesus
in his own family tomb.

The hereditary "Arimathea" title was an English
corruption of the Graeco-Hebrew style ha-Rama-Theo, meaning
"of the Divine Highness", or "of the Royal Highness"
as we’d define it today. Since Jesus was the senior Messianic heir - the
Christ, Khristos or King - then his younger brother was the Crown Prince - the
Royal Highness, Rama-Theo. In the Nazarene hierarchy,
the Crown Prince always held the patriarchal title of "Joseph",
just as Jesus was a titular "David" and his wife was a "Mary".

In the early fifth century, Jesus and Mary’s descendent Fisher Kings
became united by marriage to the Sicambrian Franks, and from them
emerged a whole new ’reigning’ dynasty. They were the noted Merovingian Kings
who founded the French monarchy and introduced the well-known fleur-de-lys
(the ancient Jewish symbol of circumcision) as the royal emblem
of France.

From the Merovingian succession, another strain of the family
established a wholly independent Jewish kingdom in southern France: the Kingdom
of Septi-mania, which we now know as the Languedoc. And
the early princes of Toulouse, Aquitaine and Provence
were all descended in the Messianic bloodline of the Holy Grail.
Septimania was granted
to the Royal House of David in 768, and Prince Bernard of Septimania
later married a daughter of Emperor Charlemagne.

Also from the Fisher Kings came
another important parallel line of succession in Gaul. Whereas
the Merovingian Kings continued the patrimonial ’male’ heritage
of Jesus, this other line perpetuated the matriarchal heritage of
Mary Magdalene in a ’female’ line. They were the dynastic Queens of
Avallon in Burgundy, the House del Acqs, meaning "of the
waters", a style granted to Mary Magdalene in the early days when
she voyaged on the sea to Provence.

Those familiar with Arthurian and Grail lore will by now have recognized the
ultimate significance of this Messianic family of the Fisher Kings,
the Queens of Avallon and the House del Acqs (corrupted in
Arthurian romance to "du Lac").

The descendant heirs of Jesus posed an enormous threat to the Roman
High Church because they were the dynastic leaders of the true
Nazarene Church. In real terms, the Roman Church should
never have existed at all, for it was no more than a ’hybrid’ movement
comprised of various pagan doctrines attached to a fundamentally Jewish base.

Jesuswas
born in 7 BC and his birthday was on the equivalent of 1 March, with an
’official’ royal birthday on 15 September to comply with dynastic regulation.
But, when establishing the Roman High Church in the fourth century, Emperor
Constantineignored both of these dates and supplemented 25
December as the new Christ’s Mass Day, to coincide with the pagan
Sun Festival.

Later, at the Synod of Whitby in 664, the bishops expropriated
the Celtic festival of Easter (Eostre), the Goddess of
Spring and Fertility, and attached a wholly new Christian significance.
In so doing, they changed the date of the Celtic festival to sever its
traditional association with the Jewish Passover...